That doesn't make sense.
We have special mode - capture airfields, which requires to land (and then take-off).
And in simple dogfight that was not the case even in real war - pilot got credit if someone has seen his kills. Of course, loosing his own plane wasn't good, but here mathematics of war (and scores in game) cames in - if you kill three planes and lost once, it is still great.

There also about the same number of options in WoP. Takeoffs and landings option is replaced with special Mode.

That is exactly my point. Takeoffs and landings are part of special mode in WOP. The server host can't make them as seperate setting without being attached to "special" game mode.

When I flew with my online squad, we would fly servers that had user created scenarios setups. We could choose to go on a bombing run to take down ground targets or use team tactics and do some dogfighting. The server was setup so that a team could win by either taking out planes (on ground and in air) or by destroying a certain number of ground targets. You still got points for your individual kills, but you earned only 10% of those points if you died during the sortie, 50% if you bailed out, and 100% if you returned to base. Dying or losing the plane would cost a pilot or plane off your teams stock. Some people flew defense to protect against bomber attacks, some just went out looking for dogfights, and some went on bombing missions. Pilots took extra care of teammates and used good team tactics. Teammates did everything thing could to ensure a good sortie AND that as many as planes as possible returned to base.

My point is that the immersion factor is great when server hosts can design or run scenarios and use settings of their choosing to control the gameplay experience.

To say you have takeoffs and landings too is somewhat deceptive because it is attached to a specific game mode - capture the airfield - which by the way is not great for immersion. Nobody captures territory with airpower alone - at least not in WWII.

Again, I'm just saying the approach used in 1946 gave PC simmers the tools to design the scenarios THEY want to fly with the SETTINGS they want.

Rigid gameplay types and limited settings are features found in consoles. It's sad to see the in recent PC versions of games that shallow game depth of consoles is finding its way into PCs. Look at Modern Warfare 2 on PC- NO dedicated servers, lean function removed (from previous games), and no user created content of any kind possible. When the developers were asked why they made it like the console version they respond with, "Hey, it's vastly different, we let you use a mouse on the PC version!" Glad I cancelled my MW2 preorder.

Sounds to me like developers that release games on PC want this rigid gametype because it allows them to control content and gameplay experience, then developer can add a few gameplay types (that user community would have created themselves because it was lacking in the first place) and sell a sequel the next year or so for 50 bucks. There is already talk of a sequel for WOP, so this is the vibe I'm getting and it doesn't sound good.

Yea, PC games don't make much money, but slimming them down in depth so as to setup to sell sequels won't attract a huge fanbase. Even if you have to sell download content, you are better off than trying to sell a flight simmer essentially the same game with added features.

The flight sim community in 1946 added more features/options to IL2 1946 than BOP in its entirety contains (minus graphics of course) and I'm saying that without considering the MODS.

It was a good interview.
Thanks for the heads up.


Wheels

Nice read, pre-ordered...

Now waiting for Beta signal!

cheers,

Bushpilot

Guys, this isn't going to be Il-2. We'll still have Il-2 (and eventually SoW:BoB) for the hard-core take-off and landing bit. On the other hand WoP is going to be a nice tour of a well built 'light' flight sim.

As for me - A full mission builder (or at least an open and editable mission file format) is very important.

I'm also a little disappointed that there won't be a cockpit for the Il-4 (wonderful plane if you ask me).

Still, I think I'll pick up a copy of this.

Hello, please clarify here then. Below is an abstract from the interview:





What is "no virtual cockpits"? And what is 34 cockpits...playable with TrackIr?

Thanks,
Dirk.

I know it isn't IL2, but it's a shame that they want to put all the work into the game, but leave out simple additions that make the game attractive to a variety of tastes. They have adopted a rigid online feature set - you have a few pre-determined game types and no flexibility other then 3 difficulty settings.

You mention the mission builder - well if they do that right, then you should be able to design an online or single player mission with the gameplay you want. If you want take offs and landings, then you should be able to make that a condition of a single player mission or online play.

The game might be a quick sale for a few people interested, but if there if nothing additional for a sim community to work with to make the experience work for them, then it won't last. This game isn't Madden NFL like on consoles, there isn't a large and dumb enough fanbase to buy essentially the same game every year (refering to the talk about a sequel already).

I swear, the PC game market is being forced into the same business model found on console games with a serious dose of DUMBING down. If Modern Warefare 2 is just the beginning, the outlook is horrible. PC game makers need a different business model than consoles. I hate to say it, but the makers of Rise of Flight are on the right path - too bad the multiplayer is broken and they are charging too much for one plane at a time. Some tweaking of that business model might work for PC simmers.

Virtual cockpit is how the 'first person view' is called, the cockpit view without the actual cockpit.
And the 34 cockpits, well, that's the cockpits in the game, which you will be able to see and use with TrackIr.


I completely agree with this. What I enjoy in BoP is that you get right in the action. There's less reason to keep flying when you're shot (in 1946 you'd go RTB to get more points), but if you crash you can just jump right back in. Not everyone likes this, but I found it quite enjoyable.

I think I got it - normal virtual cockpits with TrackIR, init? Then no worries here.

Thanks,
Dirk.

You must have the option to takeoff and land in every mission that airfields are available. Hoepfully as the game expands the maps will become big enough with airfields available for both sides of the conflict. I understand that many simmers don't need to land and takeoff, but if you want more sales you must have the OPTION for landing and takeoffs in simulation mode. I would imagine that most combat flight simmers who use the CFS, BOB WOV, and the IL-2 series land and take off in their missions.

I suppose it will depend on how long the developers plan to support the sim.

+1

Dirk.